Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

BMos may have a range upto 900km,some reports. NB should be developed to be our desi Tomahawk/Kalibir with at least a 1500km range.The Kilo-2 subs active in the Meditt. appear to have a 6 Kalibir capacity instead of the usual 4. This would require in the future for the IN to build a large SSGN class equipped with dozens of NBs. Some US subs have a weaponload of approx. 150 LRCMs! A large inventory of subs which can fire NB could give us a crippling capability against an enemy's surface fleet/CBs,where we could launch salvoes of a combination of upto 200 NBs and BMos missiles.

The success of NB along with BMos ,where even deadlier variants are in the offing,plus the recently tested GBs,will give the armed forces a very powerful strike capability at long ranges.The cost of PGMs is huge.Even the US ran out of PGMs during the GW-1.Desi NB may become the best cost-effective weapon of choice against general targets with BMos meant for defeating sophisticated air defences on land and at sea.

Philip wrote:BMos may have a range upto 900km,some reports. NB should be developed to be our desi Tomahawk/Kalibir with at least a 1500km range.The Kilo-2 subs active in the Meditt. appear to have a 6 Kalibir capacity instead of the usual 4. This would require in the future for the IN to build a large SSGN class equipped with dozens of NBs. Some US subs have a weaponload of approx. 150 LRCMs! A large inventory of subs which can fire NB could give us a crippling capability against an enemy's surface fleet/CBs,where we could launch salvoes of a combination of upto 200 NBs and BMos missiles.

The success of NB along with BMos ,where even deadlier variants are in the offing,plus the recently tested GBs,will give the armed forces a very powerful strike capability at long ranges.The cost of PGMs is huge.Even the US ran out of PGMs during the GW-1.Desi NB may become the best cost-effective weapon of choice against general targets with BMos meant for defeating sophisticated air defences on land and at sea.

Those are last 4 Ohio class SSBNs converted into SSGNs. I'd prefer Oscar class with few dozens of BrahMos. Better to use supersonic in anti-shipping role. But we need 1500 wala at the minimum, with later iterations having 2500 km like Kalibr and TH.

If it is nuclear that would be classified as a light warhead. It is not easy (as per my reading) to achieve a 200 kg, <50 cm warhead. Only an efficient thermonuclear warhead can get there IMO. Good job. If true.

Sir what would be the approximate dia. of the Silver Ball shown by NoKo in early 2016 ?Looked like between 50-80 cm in dia.

If it is nuclear that would be classified as a light warhead. It is not easy (as per my reading) to achieve a 200 kg, <50 cm warhead. Only an efficient thermonuclear warhead can get there IMO. Good job. If true.

Sir what would be the approximate dia. of the Silver Ball shown by NoKo in early 2016 ?Looked like between 50-80 cm in dia.

manjgu wrote:shiv..its also possible that in an advanced avtaar of the nirbhay missile. it carries a camera to determine targets and communicates with a command centre.

Two way communication? No.

Target recognition camera is technically possible but remember that at 100 meters height the visibility of any target from that height may be less than 5 km depending on smog, smoke, fog, trees, undulating terrain etc. More likely the camera will be useful for terrain matching to navigate accurately to a static target rather than a moving one

manjgu wrote:the missile envelope is from 100m to 6000m.. so maybe at 100 m its not possible but if missile cruising at higher altitude it may be possible??

In clear weather, no clouds, no smoke/smog, wide open ground, high profile un-camouflaged target yes. From maybe 40 km out. Depends on how expensive the optics are which blow up with each cruise missile. Better to use a UAV or AWACS for that so that you are not blowing up sensitive expensive lenses and electronics every time. Like blowing up a Litening or equivalent pod with a bomb That apart when you fire a cruise missile from 1000 km away who is going to come and tell you that the target is still intact (or destroyed)? You will need a separate platform for that.

150-200 kg correlates well with a 50 cm diameter. But still it would have to be a fail-safe design. A boosted reactor grade Pu bomb with a subkiloton yield would be great for even airfield sized targets. A 0.5 to 1 kt weapon would pretty much devastate an airfield, a naval base or a parliament building

Almost exactly a year ago, DRDO chief S. Christopher witnessed a test run demonstration of the Manik turbofan at the DRDO’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in Bengaluru. In March 2015, Defence Secretary G. Mohan Kumar was shown the engine switched on. It was in November 2014 that the mini turbofan engine was christened Manik.

Livefist has learnt that the Nirbhay cruise missile, currently powered by an NPO Saturn 36MT turbofan, will next be tested in the May-June {Nov 2017} period using a turbojet engine. While the GTRE has been mandated with proving the Manik turbofan by the time the Nirbhay’s other flight systems are proven, top sources confirm a Nirbhay test powered by a Manik engine could take place by the end of next year. The Manik turbofan has been under rigirous ground and high power tests for over two years now, and scientists are understood to be satisfied with progress. Current activity includes work spread between GTRE and the National Aerospace Laboratory. At the latter’s Propulsion Division, Manik components including its fan, centrifugal compressor, high pressure and low pressure turbines and alternator are under test.

At 425 kgF (kilogram-force) of thrust, scientists are working to reduce the Manik turbofan’s current 110 kilogram total weight. The engine makes major use of the Mishra Dhatu Nigam-developed MDN 321 special steel and special indigenous alloys.

Significantly, the GTRE isn’t fully equipped to test the Manik and is working fast to add test capabilities and infrastructure. This was borne out yesterday in the defence standing committee’s report to Parliament, where the MoD made the following admission:

“The existing Fan & Compressor Test Facility at Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) has inadequate capacity and has become obsolete. To carry out testing of Fan & Compressor for existing and future generation gas turbine engine programmes of GTRE, it is essential to have a dedicated Fan & Compressor test facility at GTRE. GTRE is working out the budgetary cost of this facility to be established ‘on turnkey basis’ with an objective to initiate EPC approval by end of Oct 2016.” {Again infrastructure woes trouble indigenous product development efforts}

The report further details aggressive plans to beef up a non-existent engine development and validation ecosystem in South India:

“The design improvement and validation of aero engine components and modules through testing is a continuous activity to enhance and demonstrate engine performance and reliability. At present, only limited aerodynamic and structural testing can be conducted within the country. Hence, the required component testing facilities at an estimated cost of Rs.1330 crore are planned to be established by DRDO at Rajanakunte, Bengaluru for development of Ghatak engine and all future generation aero engines.”

In addition, the DRDO is reported to be planning a twin test cell at GTRE to carry out ‘performance testing of gas turbine engines upto 130 kN thrust class’, which includes all versions of the Kaveri engine, including the dry version being developed for the Ghatak stealth UCAV. The bolstering of gas turbine development and testing infrastructure is belated but very welcome: it amplifies a recognition that India is willing to invest in one of the toughest areas of military science, one that has tormented the most advanced nations, and is currently harrowing China too.

Add six months to published DRDO time lines for Manik to be ready for Nirbhay test. Up until that time, I guess PTAE variant will be used in future Nirbhay tests to improve other systems.

Probably batch-1 Nirbhay will be inducted with TJ. Hopefully, HAL Engine division will start working on whatever little SFC improvements that can be achieved on PTAE. BTW, HAL Engine division was also responsible for development Shakti-Ardiden engine. Wonder if they are working on improving the same as well!

Gagan wrote:Why can’t the mijjile do a Brahmos istyle bharata-natyam by phyrring three rockets from the tip to suddenly bring it to a horizontal position?

It has large aerodynamic control surfaces (tailfins) that enable bank to turn. Skid to turn like Brahmos bleeds energy, though Brahmos has ample. Totally different philosophy. Nirbhay is a mileage vehicle. BrahMos is a hot rod. Needless to say, mileage vehicles provide the numbers.

After 2008 attacks it was proposed to use BrahMos to target Hafiz Sayed, Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi & Dawood Ibrahim aided by Cartosat data. The politicians and bureaucrats in Delhi didnt have the balls to give go ahead.

As posted previously few pages back.The guidance of Nirbhay is INS, RLG & GPS. No IRNSS. We all know in GW1& 2 Khan lost Tomahaks because of mismatch in terrain mapping feature of Gulf Sand Dunes or they flown them in extended paths to get to follow some prominent land features.

Now the questions are 1. How much accurate is our INS +RLG combo for missile with 200 kg conventional warheads.

2. I assume for BMs Khan can deny GPS by monitoring parameters like 1. Speed 2. Altitude 3. Receiver Area of operation etc. As Nirbhay flies at only around 0.7 mach & 100 to 6000 m AGL so it falls in same zone with civil (aviation) use. Isn't It ??

Can GPS be selective denied only for our CMs ?? Why No IRNSS based Navigation ?

Is it because of Accuracy issues or Coverage issue around test range or is it because of non availability of full proof HW/SW receivers/ modules for this use.

Mollick.R wrote:As posted previously few pages back.The guidance of Nirbhay is INS, RLG & GPS. No IRNSS. We all know in GW1& 2 Khan lost Tomahaks because of mismatch in terrain mapping feature of Gulf Sand Dunes or they flown them in extended paths to get to follow some prominent land features.

Now the questions are 1. How much accurate is our INS +RLG combo for missile with 200 kg conventional warheads.

2. I assume for BMs Khan can deny GPS by monitoring parameters like 1. Speed 2. Altitude 3. Receiver Area of operation etc. As Nirbhay flies at only around 0.7 mach & 100 to 6000 m AGL so it falls in same zone with civil (aviation) use. Isn't It ??

Can GPS be selective denied only for our CMs ?? Why No IRNSS based Navigation ?

Is it because of Accuracy issues or Coverage issue around test range or is it because of non availability of full proof HW/SW receivers/ modules for this use.

Gurus thora Gyaan Please........

NO gyan. Only speculations FWIW.IRNSS is a new system. Will take time to get it into all our systems. It should not be a big challenge to include IRNSS in the system at later stage. It will be an augmented GPS+IRNSS system most probably. I would design it that way at least. Plus having only IRNSS based nav would restrict the area of use only to IRNSS covered area. I might be wrong on this but I highly doubt we have access to the more accurate mil grade GPS signal. So some kind of algorithm needed to improve accuracy of GPS normal signal through INS+GPS integration (also to take care of the possible blackouts in flight). Augmenting signal from two or more systems make it further accurate and robust.

I also doubt GPS signal can be blocked/degraded in some specific small area (AFAIK, not possible to do on device specific basis as there is no two way communication between receiver and the sats). I can think of ways to introduce some error in Satellite signals that they transmit, but as far as my understanding goes, that would not be limited to a small geographical area, would spread over significantly large area, disrupting more than just the mil activity of specific country. As such USG has removed the "Selective Availability" feature which would do this error introduction in civilian signal. Though that's not a real guarantee against any possible action from USG on this.

manjgu wrote:the missile envelope is from 100m to 6000m.. so maybe at 100 m its not possible but if missile cruising at higher altitude it may be possible??

In clear weather, no clouds, no smoke/smog, wide open ground, high profile un-camouflaged target yes. From maybe 40 km out. Depends on how expensive the optics are which blow up with each cruise missile. Better to use a UAV or AWACS for that so that you are not blowing up sensitive expensive lenses and electronics every time. Like blowing up a Litening or equivalent pod with a bomb That apart when you fire a cruise missile from 1000 km away who is going to come and tell you that the target is still intact (or destroyed)? You will need a separate platform for that.

Adding the above re visibility and ramana's earlier post talking about Nirbhay being used for targets of opportunity and particularly Nasr which is essentially a MRLS with a tactical nuke. Those things are on trucks which I doubt one can distinguish from bog standard MRLS trucks given the same trucks of the A-100 MRLS carry these too which itself is a chicom copy of the Smerch.

Subsonic CMs have always relied on flying below the deck/terrain hugging/hiding behind geographic features (thus way-point nav needed) to avoid detection and reach to the target. Even AWACS would find it rather hard to see a low flying CM due to its small profile. Low speed is to have efficient cruise and longer range. CMs do have a credible capability and utility as N-weapons delivery platform from this perspective.

What would be more compelling argument is can they reach their target with surety..? (Not considering shooting down). CMs are known to have veered off course in many occasions if you believe even some of those reports out on internet. Perhaps current generation of CMs are far more robust in Navigation now.

As Nuclear Warhead carrier Cruise Missile are considered more dangerous as they can fly under the radar and provide little warning time to advesary and can attack from multiple direction unlike BM that can be immediately detected at launch and trajectory roughly predicted. The drawback would be its long fligght time

Austin wrote:As Nuclear Warhead carrier Cruise Missile are considered more dangerous as they can fly under the radar and provide little warning time to advesary and can attack from multiple direction unlike BM that can be immediately detected at launch and trajectory roughly predicted. The drawback would be its long fligght time

Once nukes are launched no one is worrying about waste and unintended consequences. Every nuke has consequences that are well known and intended. No way of saying "Oops I didn't mean that.. bahut sorry ho gaya"

That said - aircraft carrying nukes will hardly ingress supersonic though they may accelerate after dropping a nuke. They are bigger and less stealthy - makes a good case for CM nukes

Zynda wrote:Probably batch-1 Nirbhay will be inducted with TJ. Hopefully, HAL Engine division will start working on whatever little SFC improvements that can be achieved on PTAE. BTW, HAL Engine division was also responsible for development Shakti-Ardiden engine. Wonder if they are working on improving the same as well!

My chance to whine.

requiement exists 6000 Engines!!!!! even by conservative estimates! $250K/piece. +$250K support , maintianence over lifetime/piece. Numbing numbers. HTSE 1200 is in same power rating! Something that should have started in 2008 .

Nice gathering of Scottish and a couple of Desi friends.My favourites are Ardbeg ..of the Islays and Glendronach from Speyside.I prefer it to a Macallan.Cragganmore is another excellent dram.Talisker great at any age.I once some years ago drank my age.A 50 yr. old Dalmore very kindly gifted to me by a friend.

No I am still in Bharat, but make the odd trip to Blighty each yr. to visit old haunts,esp. in the heather country. Single cask,cask strengths in particular. Usually around midsummer.Will keep you posted.Slainte!

Shiv..a) a UAV or AWACS wont provide eyes deep into enemy territory ( i mean at ranges which are advertised for CM's ... 300 to 1000 km) b) the optics will have to be integral to the CM c) i dont think optics of a CM can be compared to a Litening type pod which is both a recon+laser degination pod. d) BDA will be done either by dedicated a/c or maybe satellites in todays times. e) is the IRNSS working these days?? i thought its non functional due to atomic clock issues?? f) are there any special challenges firing CM 's from high altitude area?

Once nukes are launched no one is worrying about waste and unintended consequences. Every nuke has consequences that are well known and intended. No way of saying "Oops I didn't mean that.. bahut sorry ho gaya"

Shiv, i was alluding to interference in other plans if nuclear CM gets shot down. ex: if a nuclear missile fired at Sarogodha or some deeper military base gets shot down over Lawhore, then, it might interfere with our other battle plans in that area.

Last edited by A Deshmukh on 09 Nov 2017 10:30, edited 1 time in total.

shiv wrote:Once nukes are launched no one is worrying about waste and unintended consequences. Every nuke has consequences that are well known and intended. No way of saying "Oops I didn't mean that.. bahut sorry ho gaya"

Shiv, i was alluding to interference in other plans if nuclear CM gets shot down. ex: if a nuclear missile gets shot down over Lawhore, then, it might interfere with our other battle plans in that area.

If you scenario requires using CM to nuke lahore, it'd mean we'd run out of all our ballistic missiles, fighters that can carry nukes. So in that case, why does it matter? Nuking a city is the last battle plan anyone would have. You can't have a battle plan after using nukes.

A Deshmukh wrote:Shiv, i was alluding to interference in other plans if nuclear CM gets shot down. ex: if a nuclear missile gets shot down over Lawhore, then, it might interfere with our other battle plans in that area.

If you scenario requires using CM to nuke lahore, it'd mean we'd run out of all our ballistic missiles, fighters that can carry nukes. So in that case, why does it matter? Nuking a city is the last battle plan anyone would have. You can't have a battle plan after using nukes.

Edited my post. my scenario is not of nuking lawhore.To clarify further: if we fire a 1000km cruise missile at another deeper military base, but it gets shot down at the border.if this missile has nuclear warhead - then it can be harmful for our own advancing forces.

Nirbhay / cruise missile is like 0.7 Mach plane without the plane's maneuvering capabilities, carrying single bomb. So, if spotted, it will not escape AA missile / gun.But this is much cheaper than a plane delivering the bomb. less risk (pilot less). 1000+km is very good range. Accurate via GPS/IRNSS.This can take over the role of DPSA Jagaurs. Waypoint navigation makes Nirbhay a very potent weapon. The missile can approach a target from directions that does not have AAD.

We need to produce this in mass numbers (1000s to handle western front and 10000s to handle northern front).

Last edited by A Deshmukh on 09 Nov 2017 10:51, edited 1 time in total.

Karthik S wrote:If you scenario requires using CM to nuke lahore, it'd mean we'd run out of all our ballistic missiles, fighters that can carry nukes. So in that case, why does it matter? Nuking a city is the last battle plan anyone would have. You can't have a battle plan after using nukes.

Edited my post. my scenario is not of nuking lawhore.To clarify further: if we fire a 1000km cruise missile at another deeper military base, but it gets shot down at the border.if this missile has nuclear warhead - then it is harmful for our own advancing forces.

Even then, if our ground forces are in or around lahore, you really think nirbhay carrying a nuke will fly above them? What's the point of having a 1000 + km range loitering missile, if it flies directly over your forces to reach sargodha that's barely 200 km from the border?